Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: To delineate if there were differences in outcomes between definitive fixation strategies in open tibial shaft fractures.
Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey.
Study Selection: Randomized and Quasi-randomized studies analyzing adult patients (>18 years) with open tibial shaft fractures (AO-42), undergoing definitive fixation treatment of any type.
Data Extraction: Data regarding patient demographics, definitive bony/soft-tissue management, irrigation, type of antibiotics, and follow-up. Definitive intervention choices included unreamed intramedullary nailing (UN), reamed intramedullary nailing, plate fixation, multiplanar, and uniplanar external fixation (EF). The primary outcome was unplanned reoperation rate. Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation systems were used for quality analysis.
Data Synthesis: A random-effects meta-analysis of head-to-head evidence, followed by a network analysis that modeled direct and indirect data was conducted to provide precise estimates [relative risk (RR) and associated 95% confidence interval (95% CI)].
Results: In open tibial shaft fractures, direct comparison UN showed a lower risk of unplanned reoperation versus EF (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43-1.05, P = 0.08, moderate confidence). In Gustilo type III open fractures, the risk reduction with nailing compared with EF was larger (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37-1.01, P = 0.05, moderate confidence). UN had a lower reoperation risk compared with reamed intramedullary nailing (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.4, P = 0.68, low confidence); however, this was not significant and did not demonstrate a clear advantage.
Conclusions: Intramedullary nailing reduces the risk of unplanned reoperation by a third compared with EF, with a slightly larger reduction in type III open fractures. Future trials should focus on major complication rates and health-related quality of life in high-grade tibial shaft fractures.
Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002090 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!